Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

In re: Taylor

Federal 7th Circuit Court
In re: Taylor
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-3017
Decision Date: 
July 20, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that Bankruptcy Ct. abused its discretion by issuing creditor contempt and damages orders arising out of creditor’s conduct in seeking from state probate court ratification of assignment to creditor of claim against debtor, under circumstances where debtor had previously filed bankruptcy petition and obtained order from Bankruptcy Ct. that enjoined creditor from collecting on any debt by operation of 11 USC section 524(a)(2) and of any bankruptcy plan of reorganization. Creditor’s motion for ratification order in probate court did not violate either statutory injunction or plan injunction issued by Bankruptcy Ct. because ratification motion did not seek to collect, recover, prosecute or satisfy any judgment against debtor. Ct. rejected debtor’s argument that creditor’s ratification motion in probate court was prohibited because it constituted indirect attempt to establish debtor’s personal liability.

Public Act 99-75

Topic: 
Property fraud alert system
(Greg Harris, D-Chicago; Cunningham, D-Chicago) provides that in a county that has a property-fraud alert system, a county recorder may create a registration form to register a property owner on the county’s property fraud alert system. A real estate professional may file the registration form with the recorder on behalf of a property owner. Real estate professionals must register with the county recorder before filing the registration forms on behalf of property owners. Effective January 1, 2016
View Full Text of Legislation

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend

Federal 7th Circuit Court
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend
Civil Court
Jurisdiction
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-1017
Decision Date: 
July 16, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Appeal dismissed
Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s pro se appeal of Dist. Ct.’s order granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion seeking to foreclose on defendant’s property based upon defendant’s default on mortgage note held by plaintiff. While Dist. Ct. entered Rule 54(b) order stating that its judgment was final and appealable, instant order was not final and appealable where property was subject to future reinstatement and redemption rights that could either alter said order or render it moot. Moreover, order was not final where foreclosure proceeding was still subject to future hearing to determine propriety of judicial sale and to assess any deficiency damages. Ct. further observed that Dist. Ct.’s order: (1) was not “separate claim” for purposes of rendering it final order under Rule 54(b); (2) was not form of injunction that would make it appealable under section 1292(a)(1); and (3) was not appealable under Forgay, under circumstances where defendant would suffer irreparable harm if required to wait until order became final to file appeal. (Dissent filed.)

Public Act 99-24

Topic: 
Mortgage foreclosure
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Lang, D-Skokie) provides that a court is not required to appoint a special representative for a deceased mortgagor to defend the action if there is a (1) beneficiary under a transfer on death instrument; (2) person or entity that was conveyed title to the property by the deceased mortgagor prior to death; (3) person or entity that was conveyed title to the property under the administration of the deceased’s estate; or (4) trust that was conveyed title to the property. Effective January 1, 2016.
View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 2640

Topic: 
Condominium Property Act
(Cassidy, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) makes the following changes to the Condominium Property Act. (1) Bylaws must require that each unit owner receive a copy of the proposed annual budget at least 25 (instead of 30) days before adoption by the board of managers. (2) Authorizes a board to ratify and confirm actions taken in response to an emergency. Bylaws must require that the board of managers give notice to the unit owners of the emergency and general description of the actions taken because of the emergency within seven business days after the emergency. (3) Provides that the condominium instruments may be amended with the approval of, or notice to, any mortgagee or other lienholder of record if required under the provisions of the instruments. Current law is only “with the approval of any mortgagees required under the provisions of the condominium instruments.” (4) If there is an error in an instrument so that the instrument does not conform to the Act or other law, the association may correct the instrument by an amendment adopted by two-thirds of the board of managers without a unit-owner vote. If there is a provision in a condominium instrument requiring or allowing unit owners, mortgagees, or other lienholders of record to vote to approve an amendment to a condominium instrument, or for the mortgagees or other lienholders of record to be given notice of an amendment to a condominium instrument, that provision is not applicable to an amendment to the extent that the amendment corrects an omission, error, or inconsistency to conform the condominium instrument to the law. (5) Expands what a board may discuss in a closed session to include “information relating to” litigation, employment, and a unit owner’s unpaid share of common expenses. (6) Authorizes board members to participate in and act at any meeting of the board of managers in person, by telephonic means, or by use of any acceptable technological means in which all persons participating in the meeting can communicate with each other. This kind of participation constitutes attendance and presence in person at the meeting. (7) Amends the Common Interest Community Association Act. Deletes language providing that all provisions of the declaration, bylaws, and other community instruments severed by the Act shall be revised by the board of directors independent of the membership to comply with the Act. House Bill 2640 passed both chambers last week.
View Full Text of Legislation

Instant Technology LLC v. DeFazio

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Instant Technology LLC v. DeFazio
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 14-2132 & 14-2243 Cons.
Decision Date: 
July 14, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding after bench trial that defendants-former employees of plaintiff did not breach terms of restrictive covenants when defendants began employment with competing employment agency following their termination from plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to establish that defendants accessed plaintiff’s proprietary information about its clients after leaving their positions at plaintiff. Moreover, while defendants admitted to breaching covenant not to solicit plaintiff's staff or recruit plaintiff’s clients, Dist. Ct. could properly find that said covenants were unreasonable, where: (1) tech-staffing firms generally do not build relationships with its clients; (2) information about said clients could be found in other public forums; and (3) plaintiff could not rely on its interest in “stable workforce” to justify covenant not to recruit.

VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. Stiffel Laboratories, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. Stiffel Laboratories, Inc.
Civil Court
Contracts
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-3232
Decision Date: 
July 10, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in action alleging that defendants violated terms of licensing agreement calling for defendants to pay plaintiff royalties under licensing agreement to market CoffeeBerry-based skin care products. While plaintiff argued that defendants had engineering unauthorized assignment of license by purchasing stock of original licensee in order to avoid paying plaintiff portion of royalties owed to it, license agreement did not forbid defendants from obtaining control of original licensee. Moreover, second basis for appeal (i.e., that plaintiff should receive portion of $8.5 that defendants paid for licensee’s stock because portion of purchase price represented advanced royalties owed to plaintiff) was without basis, since record reflected that $8.5 million represented actual purchase price of stock, as opposed to sale of CoffeeBerry products.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Hoffmann

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Hoffmann
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Citation to Discover Assets
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 141172
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SPENCE
Plaintiff bank filed suit against Defendant as guarantor of multimillion-dollar loan, and obtained judgment for $10.6 million. Bank issued third-party citations to discover assets, including financial services office where Defendant had an IRA. Court properly denied Defendant's Section 12-1005 motion for damages, as Bank did not "seize" her IRA, as it did not take possession of IRA. Citation to discovery assets informed third party of potential penalties if it transferred or disposed of the judgment debtor's property. Even if IRA were "seized", good-faith exception would apply. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Peterson v. McGladrey LLP

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Peterson v. McGladrey LLP
Civil Court
Bankruptcy
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1986
Decision Date: 
July 7, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing Trustee’s lawsuit on behalf of insolvent investment funds, alleging that defendant-accounting firm committed accounting malpractice by failing to conduct sufficient audit of funds to detect fact that funds had been manipulated to disguise Ponzi scheme that caused funds' investors to lose money. Doctrine of in pari delicto applied to block any liability on part of defendant, where record showed that funds had committed separate fraud on investors through use of misleading documents that induced investors to invest money in funds, and that misconduct on part of funds was equal to or greater than any misconduct on part of defendant in failing to conduct sufficient audit. Ct. rejected Trustee’s claim that in pari delicto defense did not apply where, as here, defendant and funds committed separate acts of misconduct that contributed to single loss to investors.